54 in a 50 Zone

Eoin

Praetorian wrote:

Ohh, and my aunt got a lovely 2 points for 53k/ph in a 50 k/ph zone from the sound bud in the gatso van. Lovely. What's that, 2 old m/ph over the limit.

I may be well off here, but I think the problem is that the vans are not manned, so there is no human judgement made on whether the speeding was excessive or not.

Seth Brundle

eoin_s wrote:

I may be well off here, but I think the problem is that the vans are not manned, so there is no human judgement made on whether the speeding was excessive or not.

I had heard this before but the other day I saw a motorcycle gard beep and wave at a green transit talivan on the N4 (@ liffeyvalley). He must have thought he knew someone in there

egan007

Bard wrote:

People who break the speed limit ARE real criminals.

This isn't the first 'wah wah, I broke the speed limit and I got caught, wah wah' thread. Speed limits are there for a reason. Don't break the speed limit and you're not breaking the law. It's not rocket science.

If you get caught speeding, you've nobody to blame but yourself.

OH jesus i hope you never get to make any decisions that affect me

LFCFan

egan007 wrote:

OH jesus i hope you never get to make any decisions that affect me

but Kev, do you not realise that there are a lot of organised crime gangs out there organising all this speeding. Lock them all up I say. Scum of the earth they are

Praetorian

egan007 wrote:

OH jesus i hope you never get to make any decisions that affect me

Bards probably accidentally drifted slightly over the speed limit once or twice*. Shame he wasn't caught, then he could be a "real criminal" too.

I think the Gardaí should use their common sense to realise that breaking the speed limit by a tiny percentage isn't really posing any danger to anyone on the road. Sure anything from a slight decline to a tailwind could have you accidentally breaking the law. Looking down on the speedometer every 10 seconds wouldn't be very safe would it?

* For the record, I reckon it's happened him more than once or twice.



I don't have any penalty points. I'm just bítching about what's happened to others.

Robbo

LFCFan wrote:

but Kev, do you not realise that there are a lot of organised crime gangs out there organising all this speeding. Lock them all up I say. Scum of the earth they are

Surely Michael McDowell will tackle this vast subversive movement?

GoneShootin

Alun wrote:

Whether it's a digital speedo or an analogue one, doesn't make the blindest bit of difference, it still gets its input signal from the same place and is subject to exactly the same inaccuracies, mainly due to tyre wear, incorrectly inflated tyres or after-market alloys and tyres that are the 'wrong' size.

My GPS also tells me that I can safely drive at a rough indicated 80mph (130km/h) and still be legal in a 120 km/h limit.

It does make a difference. Ive seen analogue meters where the actual stick itself is jumping about the place like a twig in the wind. It was in a 00 Megane with 70k+ iirc. Ive doubt a digital one would suffer from the same physical problems a plastic stick could.

ibanez

Its been a long time since any car has used a cable to drive the speedo most cars of the last 17 years or so have electric speedoes and trip computer or not they get their input from the same place.Like Alun said factors like Tyre pressures,Profile and After market alloys all make a difference.I think its dangerous to be squinting at the speedo all the time to make sure you havent gone over by a few MPH when you should be concentrating on where you are on the road relative to other road users.

Seth Brundle

[basically the AGSI are pis$ed off with the practive of catching people a few clicks over the limit!]

from http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0323/garda.html

The AGSI also says gardaí are under pressure to issue tickets for road traffic offences to keep the rate of detections up.

The Kilkenny conference heard that the practice is creating conflict between gardaí and the public, and risks damaging the credibility of the force.

Delegates have voted in favour of a motion to re-examine traffic enforcement measures.

They say there have been cases where gardaí have apologised to drivers for issuing them tickets for driving at a few kilometres over the speed limit.

They also want the re-establishment of dedicated Road Traffic Units, small teams of gardaí tasked to examine the safety and roadworthiness of cars and lorries on the road.

edmund_f

Gardai looking for sympathy?

'risk' of damaging the relationship between the force and the public.. hmmm bit late?

And they agreed that something should be done... that's big of them

that will make it all okay the next time i am stopped or i see someone else stopped for some minor infringement of the traffic act.

it is at the discretion of the Gardai how they enforce the law, if they decide to catch 100 'speeders' doing 105% of the limit on a dual carraigeway, or 1 doing 150% of the limit on a minor road, that is their choice.

The only people Gardai answer to is other Gardai... this is just PR

Alun

GoneShootin wrote:

It does make a difference. Ive seen analogue meters where the actual stick itself is jumping about the place like a twig in the wind. It was in a 00 Megane with 70k+ iirc. Ive doubt a digital one would suffer from the same physical problems a plastic stick could.

Then that particular speedo was fcuked, and this has no bearing on how accurate one system is against another. People somehow think that a digital readout is more accurate, just because it's digital. It isn't.

Like ibanez said, pretty much every speedo these days is electronic and takes its input from a sensor, IIRC usually on the drive shaft in the gearbox. The signals from that sensor are taken and converted electronically either to a digital readout or an analogue readout, i.e. dial. There is no longer any physical moving connection between the "stick" as you call it, and the gearbox like there used to be.

BrianD

Well if you apply the 10% rule you should be OK. I often wonder do cops set their own thresholds i.e in a 80k zone they are only going to pull people doing 90K and above particularly when they have to pull people over. I can understand if they are less tolerant in the lower speed limits.

Alun

BrianD wrote:

Well if you apply the 10% rule you should be OK. I often wonder do cops set their own thresholds i.e in a 80k zone they are only going to pull people doing 90K and above particularly when they have to pull people over. I can understand if they are less tolerant in the lower speed limits.

I've wondered that too, although if they did that they'd be pulling people who, if they were unaware of the 10% discrepancy in their speedos, would actually be driving at an indicated 100km/h, assuming their equipment was calibrated properly. I believe they do usually set a threshold slightly above the posted limit, but not for those reasons.

BrianD3

I'd also like to know how the cops decide how much over the speed limit someone has to be before they are pulled. All measuring devices have an error associated with them and laser guns are no exception, hence the need for calibration and estimation of errors. I don't know how you'd do a calibration on a laser gun which is traceable to National Standards, it wouldn't be as straightforward as calibrating something like say a balance. Also, each gun would have to be calibrated individually as all guns will have slightly different errors. Finally, studies would have to be done to estimate the effect of various factors on the measurement eg a gun might read slightly differently at different temperatures or a seemingly trivial operator error might have a significant effect on the reading.

I wonder do the cops do all of this (or arrange for it to be done by an outside agency) Hmmm.....

BrianD3

Boggle

Gardai looking for sympathy?

'risk' of damaging the relationship between the force and the public.. hmmm bit late?

And they agreed that something should be done... that's big of them

that will make it all okay the next time i am stopped or i see someone else stopped for some minor infringement of the traffic act.

I do feel sorry for the ones who would genuinely prefer to give you the lee-way. They know its a revenue law but what can they do? They're there to enforce the law, not make it.

I always wondered could this pressuring a gard into making numbers nullify his testimony in court??

I'd also like to know how the cops decide how much over the speed limit someone has to be before they are pulled. All measuring devices have an error associated with them and laser guns are no exception, hence the need for calibration and estimation of errors. I don't know how you'd do a calibration on a laser gun which is traceable to National Standards, it wouldn't be as straightforward as calibrating something like say a balance. Also, each gun would have to be calibrated individually as all guns will have slightly different errors. Finally, studies would have to be done to estimate the effect of various factors on the measurement eg a gun might read slightly differently at different temperatures or a seemingly trivial operator error might have a significant effect on the reading.

I wonder do the cops do all of this (or arrange for it to be done by an outside agency) Hmmm.....

Prima facia evidence. The stupidest ruling EVER... Its wide open to appeal the next time some rich guy gets caught...

causal

ibanez wrote:

Its been a long time since any car has used a cable to drive the speedo

Most (if not all) motorbikes use a cable. From the front wheel spindle to the back of the speedo. I think that calls for an extra allowance

causal

causal

BrianD3 wrote:

All measuring devices have an error associated with them and laser guns are no exception, hence the need for calibration and estimation of errors. I don't know how you'd do a calibration on a laser gun which is traceable to National Standards,

If I remember correctly in England the police have to provide a calibration certificate for the device that measured your speed; and that they are calibrated each month.

causal

causal

I think the whole speeding campaign is being damaged by over strict enforcement in some cases. It's no wonder the Gardai are getting bad press for it. And so it's not surprising they want to out-source speed cameras etc to private companies; takes the heat off the Gardai.

Another point is that, understandably is some cases, people say that speeders aren't _real criminals_ etc. But isn't death on the road the second biggest cause of ('not-nautral') death in the country (after suicide). And isn't speed the single biggest causal factor in road traffic accidents. And aren't most speeders habitual speeders.

Maybe the gal doing 54 in a 50 zone isn't going to kill anyone. But maybe she is. She doesn't know, and neither do we, and neither do the Gardai. No-one gets in their car knowing this is their last journey, no-one gets in knowing "I'm going to have an accident now". But (on average) someone died yesterday, and someone died today, and someone will die tomorrow. And on a Bank Holiday weeked more people will die than on a normal weekend. The lucky ones end up in a hospital ward; the unlucky ones in the hospital morgue. Very sad but true.

causal

BrianD3

One thing that pisses me off about the anti-speeding campaign is the scaremongering aspect of it all. Just today I drove by one of those big signs that displays your speed as you drive past. It told me I was doing 64 km/h (in an 80) and the next thing that flashed up was "gardai have been informed" How bloody stupid do they think we are that we'll think there's a link between these stupid signs and a garda station. The signs are often wildy inaccurate anyway and AFAIK have no legal standing.

Then there's the signs on the M50 telling drivers to "check the signs, check your speed" When things first went metric I drove several miles along the M50 and didn't see one speed limit sign, but passed 3 signs telling me to check the (non existent) signs :rolleyes: What a load of bollox. Is it any wonder people are pissed off and think the government policy on road safety is a joke. Feckin imbeciles :mad:

BrianD3

Imposter

causal wrote:

Another point is that, understandably is some cases, people say that speeders aren't _real criminals_ etc. But isn't death on the road the second biggest cause of ('not-nautral') death in the country (after suicide). And isn't speed the single biggest causal factor in road traffic accidents. And aren't most speeders habitual speeders.

Deaths on the roads are a big problem, but to even suggest that speeding is the main problem is being very naive. When was the last time the cause of a driver's death was put down to incompetence, tiredness or any other reason that is not speeding when a person lost control of the car? Speeders might constantly speed and some may do so dangerously. To suggest all speeders are dangerous is just wrong.

causal

Imposter wrote:

Deaths on the roads are a big problem, but to even suggest that speeding is the main problem is being very naive. When was the last time the cause of a driver's death was put down to incompetence, tiredness or any other reason that is not speeding when a person lost control of the car? Speeders might constantly speed and some may do so dangerously. To suggest all speeders are dangerous is just wrong.

Whooaa. I never suggested 'all speeders are dangerous'.
But I did say "And isn't speed the single biggest causal factor in road traffic accidents." - I don't think this is naive as you suggested, the statistics bear it out:

According to the National Safety Council

* Speed is the single largest factor contributing to road deaths in Ireland.
* Over 40% of fatal accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed.

causal

camarobill

BrianD3 wrote:

One thing that pisses me off about the anti-speeding campaign is the scaremongering aspect of it all. Just today I drove by one of those big signs that displays your speed as you drive past. It told me I was doing 64 km/h (in an 80) and the next thing that flashed up was "gardai have been informed" How bloody stupid do they think we are that we'll think there's a link between these stupid signs and a garda station. The signs are often wildy inaccurate anyway and AFAIK have no legal standing.

Then there's the signs on the M50 telling drivers to "check the signs, check your speed" When things first went metric I drove several miles along the M50 and didn't see one speed limit sign, but passed 3 signs telling me to check the (non existent) signs :rolleyes: What a load of bollox. Is it any wonder people are pissed off and think the government policy on road safety is a joke. Feckin imbeciles :mad:

BrianD3

try not to get p....d off when ur stuck on the m50 for 2 hours and the signs are telling u to;check the signs'check ur speed, :eek: check my index finger

Imposter

causal wrote:

Whooaa. I never suggested 'all speeders are dangerous'.

Sorry about that but that's what I thought you were getting at.

But I did say "And isn't speed the single biggest causal factor in road traffic accidents." - I don't think this is naive as you suggested, the statistics bear it out:

Inappropriate speed would also cover incompetence. An example being where an experienced driver could safely drive 120kph on a motorway whereas a novice driver may be a danger to all and should not be on the motorway. If this driver was driving at 120 then it is an inappropriate speed but the bigger problem is the fact that they are driving there and not their speed.

Similarly driving at 130kph and hitting an idiot driver who makes a mistake would also be seen as a speeding accident when in fact the real cause of the accident is again incompetence. The same goes for pedestrians, cyclists or whatever doing something they shouldn't do and getting in an accident. In these cases inappropriate speed might be a factor and drivers should always drive defensively and be able to react to these incodents in time, but often times the driver is not the one who is really to blame even if he hit and killed/injured someone else. Yet the statistics just do not reflect this.

Seth Brundle

Boggle wrote:

I do feel sorry for the ones who would genuinely prefer to give you the lee-way. They know its a revenue law but what can they do? They're there to enforce the law, not make it.

By that argument then they should be out doing breath tests, drug tests and many other checks to enforce the law.

causal wrote:

If I remember correctly in England the police have to provide a calibration certificate for the device that measured your speed; and that they are calibrated each month.

However, the law here pretty much states that the equipment is perfect, has no inaccuracy and if you think it might then you are wrong!

causal wrote:

Whooaa. I never suggested 'all speeders are dangerous'.
But I did say "And isn't speed the single biggest causal factor in road traffic accidents." - I don't think this is naive as you suggested, the statistics bear it out:

According to the National Safety Council

I wish people would get away from using the term speed and use 'inappropriate speed'.
Anyway, I remember looking and the NSC website had differing stats for the causes of accidents!
Also as there is no proper recording of the causes of accidents here these stats are rubbish.

Boggle

kbannon wrote:

By that argument then they should be out doing breath tests, drug tests and many other checks to enforce the law.

True - I'd imagine their quotas for dui charges are far less than the quotas for speeding ... probably because there's a **** load of paperwork associated with drink drivin.

However, the law here pretty much states that the equipment is perfect, has no inaccuracy and if you think it might then you are wrong!

Police state anyone???

causal wrote:

But I did say "And isn't speed the single biggest causal factor in road traffic accidents." - I don't think this is naive as you suggested, the statistics bear it out:

According to the National Safety Council.... (bla, bla, bla)

Lets face it, the gardai have no forensic training whne it comes to accident investigation and hence don't generally investigate the cause of the crash, preferring to attribute it to speed. They don't even have stats on the % of drivers who have provisional licenses so why would you be taking their stats as valid.

Also, the govt has a vested interest in speed detection as it is a revenue burner - of course their website will try to justify this...

"And isn't speed the single biggest causal factor in road traffic accidents."

And I would have thought poor roads were a factor.... how wrong am i??? :rolleyes:

edmund_f

this thing about the speed keeps getting rolled out as 'the main factor' or whatever...

i would assume that it would not be the speed, and not to be funny, but the rapid deceleration that is the main problem

basically slowing down people will just reduce the severity of the accident, it would be impossible to measure or argue that 'speed kills'

i have personally noticed a considerable reduction in speed on the main roads since the introduction of penalty points, including my own speed, but have noted an increase in the number of accidents.

I would put forward what we should be trying to do is teach people to drive safely, and to enforce dangrous driving laws, drink, not wearing safety belts, bad overtaking etc, basically excessive driving which puts other road users at risk

i suppose it is just handy for the NSC, the goverment and the gardai to hide behind the speed argument as it is something which is impossible to disprove and easy to enforce (see mom we got 250,000 speeding violations last year, are't we brilliant!)

Boggle

i have personally noticed a considerable reduction in speed on the main roads since the introduction of penalty points, including my own speed, but have noted an increase in the number of accidents.

Maybe they're crashing cos they spend more time watchin the speedo than the road...??

I would put forward what we should be trying to do is teach people to drive safely, and to enforce dangrous driving laws, drink, not wearing safety belts, bad overtaking etc, basically excessive driving which puts other road users at risk

What about excessive slow driving? The kind of driving which forms 10 car tailbacks and an array of overtaking maneouvres? I'd be more interested in getting these people retrained than worrying about whether someone has a seatbelt on or not... (I believe personal safety is exactly that: personal... kill urself? tough!)

i suppose it is just handy for the NSC, the goverment and the gardai to hide behind the speed argument as it is something which is impossible to disprove and easy to enforce (see mom we got 250,000 speeding violations last year, are't we brilliant!)

plus it makes good money and detracts from the fact that road conditions are the true cause of most accidents (that I've ever seen)

causal

edmund_f you are correct when you say it is the deceleration that kills, technically it's acceleration (but with a negative value). Part of compulsory basic training should cover the vulnerabilty and effect of a 'torn aorta' (you bleed to death in seconds)

I take the point y'all made about the 'inappropriate speed' being a handy catch-all. Perhaps a more accurate (but imperfect) reflection is here (yes it's more NSC stats):

Contributory Factor - %
Driver Error - 82
Pedestrian Error - 11
Road Factors - 4
Environmental Factors - 2
Vehicle Factors - 1

But the irony is that vehicles account for 1% yet cars have NCT every few years; but driver error accounts for 82% and drivers only have to pass one (pathetic) test; assuming they ever sat it at all!

causal

causal

Boggle wrote:

worrying about whether someone has a seatbelt on or not... (I believe personal safety is exactly that: personal... kill urself? tough!)

Didn't you see what Michael did to his girlfriend in the ad? "Three dead in this vehicle. They say the guy without the seatbelt did the damage".
Altogether now sing: "Body to body, bumper to bumper.."

detracts from the fact that road conditions are the true cause of most accidents (that I've ever seen)

Really? All 4 accidents I saw were driver error (mainly lack of observation) but one was partially pedestrian error.

causal

Boggle

Didn't you see what Michael did to his girlfriend in the ad? "Three dead in this vehicle. They say the guy without the seatbelt did the damage".
Altogether now sing: "Body to body, bumper to bumper.."

Different debate but Michael was a passenger... All I mentioned was the driver having responsibility for himself.

Really? All 4 accidents I saw were driver error (mainly lack of observation) but one was partially pedestrian error.

Good point - my only real experience of an accident (in the family) was caused by oil on the road so I suppose I'm biased.